4.7 Article

High-order finite element methods for a pressure Poisson equation reformulation of the Navier-Stokes equations with electric boundary conditions

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113451

关键词

Incompressible Navier-Stokes; Pressure Poisson equation; Electric boundary conditions; Mixed finite elements; IMEX schemes

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, United States of America [1625061, DMS-1719637, DMS-1614043, DMS-1719640, DMS-2012271, DMS-1719693, DMS-2012268]
  2. US Army Research Laboratory [W911NF-16-2-0189]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the feasibility of obtaining high-order methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) using the Pressure Poisson equation (PPE) and electric boundary conditions (EBC). By using implicit-explicit (IMEX) time-stepping and mixed finite element methods, at least third order accuracy in space and time can be achieved.
Pressure Poisson equation (PPE) reformulations of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) replace the incompressibility constraint by a Poisson equation for the pressure and a suitable choice of boundary conditions. This yields a time-evolution equation for the velocity field only, with the pressure gradient acting as a nonlocal operator. Thus, numerical methods based on PPE reformulations are representatives of a class of methods that have no principal limitations in achieving high order. In this paper, it is studied to what extent high-order methods for the NSE can be obtained from a specific PPE reformulation with electric boundary conditions (EBC). To that end, implicit-explicit (IMEX) time-stepping is used to decouple the pressure solve from the velocity update, while avoiding a parabolic time-step restriction; and mixed finite elements are used in space, to capture the structure imposed by the EBC. Via numerical examples, it is demonstrated that the methodology can yield at least third order accuracy in space and time. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据